New Hampshire
How Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts - Products Liability.
New Hampshire follows a modified version of the strict liability principles, applying a risk-utility balancing test in product liability cases. The state emphasizes the concept of a defect being present if the product is unreasonably dangerous compared to consumer expectations and professional standards.
In New Hampshire, a product is considered defectively designed if it is unreasonably dangerous based on the risk-utility analysis and fails to meet the reasonable expectations of the user.
The court held that products must be safe for their intended use and that a defect may be evidenced by the product's failure to meet consumer expectations.
In this case, the court clarified the standards for proving a design defect under New Hampshire law, highlighting the importance of the manufacturer's knowledge and the feasibility of safer alternatives.
New Hampshire's approach aligns with the broader federal standard that relies on the risk-utility test but diverges slightly in emphasizing consumer expectations. While federal standards allow for some consideration of economic feasibility, New Hampshire's courts are more focused on how a product’s risks align with what consumers reasonably expect.
Understanding the principles from Barker v. Lull is essential for the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly in analyzing design defect claims and the application of strict liability.